[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76481-76483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27846]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-275 AND 50-323]
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-80 and DPR-82 issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
licensee) for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Unit
Nos. 1 and 2 located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS)
3.7.17 and TS 4.3 for Cycles 14-16 to allow installation and use of a
temporary cask pit spent fuel storage rack (cask pit rack) for DCPP
Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The total spent fuel pool (SFP) storage capacity for
each unit would be increased to 1478 fuel assemblies for Cycles 14-16.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required
by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed changes to temporarily increase the spent fuel
storage capacity with a cask pit rack were evaluated for impact on
the following previously evaluated events:
1. A fuel handling accident (FHA).
2. A heavy load drop into the cask pit.
3. A loss of spent fuel pool (SFP) cooling.
4. A stored fuel criticality event.
5. A seismic event.
The probability of a FHA is not significantly increased by the
proposed changes, because the same equipment (e.g., the spent fuel
handling crane) and procedures will be used to handle fuel
assemblies and the frequency of fuel movement will be essentially
the same, with or without a cask pit rack. The FHA radiological
consequences are not significantly increased because the source term
of a single fuel assembly will remain unchanged, and the cask pit
rack will be installed at the same water depth as the existing SFP
racks, with the same iodine decontamination factors assumed in the
FHA analysis. The structural consequences of dropping a fuel
assembly on a cask pit rack were evaluated and found to be
acceptable.
In accordance with NUREG-0612 [``Control of Heavy Loads at
Nuclear Power Plants''], heavy load drops are not required to be
postulated if a single failure-proof crane is used for heavy load
movements. If drops are postulated, then the consequences must be
acceptable. PG&E plans to install a single failure-proof crane in
accordance with NUREG-0612, prior to heavy load movements associated
with the cask pit rack and platform. In the event that a single
failure-proof crane is not available, PG&E has also performed heavy
load drop analyses for the cask pit rack and platform, which have
shown acceptable results in accordance with NUREG-0612. Therefore,
the probability and the consequences of a heavy load drop in the
cask pit are not significantly increased.
The probability of a loss of SFP cooling is unaffected and its
consequences are not significantly increased with the cask pit rack
installed. With the cask pit rack installed, loss of forced cooling
results in a sufficient time-to-boil for the operator to recognize
the condition and establish SFP makeup to compensate for water lost
due to pool bulk boiling, and thereby maintain a sufficient water
blanket over the stored spent fuel.
The probability and consequences of a stored fuel criticality
event are not increased by the addition of a cask pit rack. The
reactivity analysis for the new cask pit rack demonstrates that
reactivity remains subcritical (below 0.95) for the worst-case fuel-
mispositioning event with credit for soluble boron.
The probability of a seismic event is unaffected and its
consequences are not increased with the cask pit rack installed,
because the structural analysis of the cask pit rack demonstrates
that the fuel storage function of the rack is maintained during a
seismic event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change to add a cask pit rack does not alter the
operating requirements of the plant or the equipment credited in the
mitigation of design basis accidents, nor do the proposed changes
affect any of the important parameters required to ensure the safe
storage of spent fuel. A new rack material (MetamicTM) is
introduced into the pool under these changes; but, based on testing
results, there are no mechanisms that create a new or different kind
of accident. The NRC has also approved the use of
MetamicTM generically for SFPs. The same equipment (e.g.,
the spent fuel handling crane) and procedures will be used to handle
fuel assemblies for the new cask pit rack as are used for existing
spent fuel storage. The fuel storage configuration in the cask pit
rack will be similar to the configuration in the existing SFP
storage racks, and a fuel drop or mispositioning event in the new
racks does not represent a new or different kind of accident from
fuel handling and mispositioning events previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The effect of the proposed change on current margins of safety
was evaluated for spent fuel storage functionality and criticality,
spent fuel and SFP cooling, and SFP/cask pit structural integrity.
The design of the new cask pit rack uses proven technology which
preserves the proper safety margins for spent fuel storage to
provide a coolable and subcritical geometry under both normal and
abnormal/accident conditions. The rack design complies with 10 CFR
50 Appendix A General Design Criterion (GDC) 62, the O.T. Position
for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling
Applications, Regulatory Guide 1.13, and ANSI/American Nuclear
Society (ANS) 52.2. Handling of the cask pit rack and its platform
in accordance with the defense-in-depth approach of NUREG-0612 with
temporary lift devices designed to ANSI N14.6 preserves the proper
margin of safety to preclude a heavy load drop in the cask pit.
The proposed SFP cooling system design basis is consistent with
the previous licensing basis in FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report],
Section 9.1, for SFP temperature limits during normal and abnormal
core offload conditions. The rack and SFP thermal-hydraulic analyses
demonstrate that the proposed SFP cooling system design basis is
met, and that no bulk boiling will occur in the cask pit rack or SFP
with minimum cooling available. In the event
[[Page 76482]]
of a loss of SFP cooling, there will be sufficient time for
operators to identify the condition and initiate makeup flow or
restore cooling to preserve fuel-cooling capability.
The criticality analysis demonstrates that the effective neutron
multiplication factor (keff) is less than 1.0 for normal
conditions with unborated water and less than 0.95 with 500 ppm of
soluble boron, at a 95 percent probability with a 95 percent
confidence level. Further, the reactivity effects of abnormal and
accident conditions have been evaluated. To assure that under
credible abnormal and accident conditions the reactivity will not
exceed 0.95 at a 95 percent probability with a 95 percent confidence
level, a soluble boron level of 800 ppm will be required to be
maintained.
The structural analyses for the cask pit rack and platform and
adjacent structures show acceptable results during seismic motion.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document
Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
[[Page 76483]]
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected];
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by email to
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to Richard F. Locke, Esq.,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco,
California 94120, the attorney for the licensee.
The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on
an application for a license amendment falling within the scope of
section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C.
10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of
any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in
controversy among the parties.''
The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on
matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's
rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual
issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with
any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory
hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those
issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing
after oral argument.
The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are
found in 10 CFR part 2, subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power
Reactors.'' Under those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke
the hybrid hearing procedures by filing with the presiding officer a
written request for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely,
the request must be filed together with a request for hearing/petition
to intervene, filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. If it is
determined a hearing will be held, the presiding officer must grant a
timely request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an
untimely request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by
the requesting party for the failure to file on time and after
providing the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely
request. If the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument,
any hearing held on the application must be conducted in accordance
with the hybrid hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit
the time available for discovery and require that an oral argument be
held to determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an
adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests
oral argument, and if all untimely requests for oral argument are
denied, then the usual procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart L apply.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendments dated November 3, 2004, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White
Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Girija Shukla,
Project Manager, Section Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-27846 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P